4 ms·

1998, lets say that's healthy. ~50% trust from everyone. It has been in steady decline since. The only blame here is with the media itself. That's it. Dont lo

1998, lets say that's healthy. ~50% trust from everyone. It has been in steady decline since. The only blame here is with the media itself. That's it. Dont look anywhere else.

gruez 1y ago
>The only blame here is with the media itself. That's it. Dont look anywhere else. Really? The divergence in 2016 suggests it was also caused by partisanship on the part of media consumers. While it might be tempting to blame republicans for the divergence, the fact that there was a sudden spike for democrats suggest it was purely partisanship, similar to how different parties' perception of the economy diverges depending on whether their party is in power or not. https://d6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net/prod/f95cdc90-9075-11ee-b16b-7b714096dfd1-standard.png https://d6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net/prod/f95cdc90-9075-11ee...
- incomingpain 1y ago
  >eally? The divergence in 2016 suggests it was also caused by partisanship on the part of media consumers. I read this in the article, but 2016 means nothing to me. The problem clearly pre-existed 2016. Feel free to blame the customer, but that's not going to fix anything. The media have to fix itself.
disambiguation 1y ago
There are no politically neutral institutions anymore, is the more general issue. "You're either with us, or against us." It becomes less about doing a good job and more about playing for the team.
tzs 1y ago
You don't think the massive increase in the amount of time people spend reading social media over that period could have had anything to do with it?
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  Not really, no. The shift started long before that. Look, I'm old enough to remember the 1960s. Reporters then tried to be objective. They never succeeded perfectly, but they tried. The editor of the New York Times deliberately slanted editing a little right, because he knew his reporters slanted a little left. He literally had them put on his tombstone "He kept the paper straight". Nobody aspires to that now. It's not just that we consume more. It's not just that economic pressure has made them have to pump out more stories with less resources. They're not trying for what they tried for before. They gave up on trying to be objective. Yeah, they can't do it perfectly. But the difference really matters. And it will eventually matter to the media. If they aren't going to do what we need... then we don't need them any more.
- incomingpain 1y ago
  >You don't think the massive increase in the amount of time people spend reading social media over that period could have had anything to do with it? Invented long after the problem started. Not even a factor. Another option you might pick up is aggregated news, google news came out in 2002; but some existed before. RSS was invented by netscape in 1999. This likely is the causal relationship. When people can see a news event and literally see the lies from the media for themselves. There's no going back.

1998, lets say that's healthy. ~50% trust from everyone. It has been in steady decline since. The only blame here is with the media itself. That's it. Dont look anywhere else.

gruez 1y ago

>The only blame here is with the media itself. That's it. Dont look anywhere else. Really? The divergence in 2016 suggests it was also caused by partisanship on the part of media consumers. While it might be tempting to blame republicans for the divergence, the fact that there was a sudden spike for democrats suggest it was purely partisanship, similar to how different parties' perception of the economy diverges depending on whether their party is in power or not. https://d6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net/prod/f95cdc90-9075-11ee-b16b-7b714096dfd1-standard.png https://d6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net/prod/f95cdc90-9075-11ee...

incomingpain 1y ago
>eally? The divergence in 2016 suggests it was also caused by partisanship on the part of media consumers. I read this in the article, but 2016 means nothing to me. The problem clearly pre-existed 2016. Feel free to blame the customer, but that's not going to fix anything. The media have to fix itself.

disambiguation 1y ago

There are no politically neutral institutions anymore, is the more general issue. "You're either with us, or against us." It becomes less about doing a good job and more about playing for the team.

tzs 1y ago

You don't think the massive increase in the amount of time people spend reading social media over that period could have had anything to do with it?

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
Not really, no. The shift started long before that. Look, I'm old enough to remember the 1960s. Reporters then tried to be objective. They never succeeded perfectly, but they tried. The editor of the New York Times deliberately slanted editing a little right, because he knew his reporters slanted a little left. He literally had them put on his tombstone "He kept the paper straight". Nobody aspires to that now. It's not just that we consume more. It's not just that economic pressure has made them have to pump out more stories with less resources. They're not trying for what they tried for before. They gave up on trying to be objective. Yeah, they can't do it perfectly. But the difference really matters. And it will eventually matter to the media. If they aren't going to do what we need... then we don't need them any more.
incomingpain 1y ago
>You don't think the massive increase in the amount of time people spend reading social media over that period could have had anything to do with it? Invented long after the problem started. Not even a factor. Another option you might pick up is aggregated news, google news came out in 2002; but some existed before. RSS was invented by netscape in 1999. This likely is the causal relationship. When people can see a news event and literally see the lies from the media for themselves. There's no going back.